>felix> I agree.
>
>felix> (After all, what's so "unintuive" about `section'? After all
>felix> this is *exactly* what SRFI-26 does. Using terminology that is
>felix> already in common use (Haskell) is the obvious solution, IMHO)
>
>I think, when you're arguing about intuition, you need to show why
>something is intuitive, not why something is not unintuitive. Many
>Scheme programmers aren't Haskell programmers or ML programmers first.
>When I tell students I'm teaching ML or Haskell "this is called
>operator section," there's always row after row of blank faces. They
>don't find this intuitive at all. I completely fail to see why it
>should be "obvious."
I don't understand that example you give. Once a term has been coined
it might as well be used. Would your students find `named let' intuitive?
The choice of using the name `curry' is awkward. The SRFI is named
"Notation for Specializing Parameters without Currying". Yet the
notation is named `curry'. Or consider:
"The mechanism proposed here is not what is usually called "currying"!
But the "macro that is not curry" is as close to currying as it gets, as far as Scheme is concerned."
No offense, Mr. Egner, but this is ridiculous.
`section' comes closest to what this SRFI does and it is short. Otherwise
why bother with it at all?
Anyway, just DON'T call it `curry' !!!
felix